China and Tibet: Who Will Move Next?

September 15, 2010

Jimmy Halliday
The Tibet Post International
September 11, 2010

Dharamshala -- Two articles by different authors,
published together in the South China Morning
Post today (11 September), demonstrate the
current impasse in Sino-Tibetan relations and the
lack of trust felt around further negotiations.
With both sides claiming to have clarified their
positions and expectations, and waiting for the
other to move, it still could be a long waiting
process for either party to get the other back to the negotiating table.

In his article, Hong Kong based political
scientist Barry Sautman, analogously with most
Chinese Government comments, discredits the Dalai
Lamas honesty in pushing for the Middle Path,
claiming the Tibetan spiritual leaders actions
do not match his professed aims. He also argues
that that while Chinese propaganda is often
criticized, the same questioning of Tibetan
propaganda doesnt exist, and the world tends to
take Tibetan claims on face value.

Lodi Gyaltsen Gyari, The Dalai Lamas Special
Envoy and head of the Tibetan negotiations team
with China, writes from a very different
perspective. He claims their intentions have been
made clearly, and that China appears to be hoping
for a resolution through the passing away of the
current Dalai Lama, or assimilation as Chinas
economy and position in the world rises,
presumably having a positive effect for the
Tibetan people. He writes that viewing the
artificial stability in Tibet as acquiescence and
waiting for the issue to lose momentum will
likely create further discontentment and desperation.

In addition to presenting the Memorandum on
Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People in
November 2008, Gyari notes that in January this
year, Tibetan representatives stated in clear
and definitive terms that we seek only genuine
autonomy within the framework of the People's
Republic of China, its constitution and its
laws. Sautman says that while Tibetan in exile
leaders demonstrate a separatist approach, they
cannot expect China to negotiate, and notes the
preconditions that Beijing has laid out.

With such a wide gap between perspectives, and
each side putting responsibility elsewhere, the
articles make it seem like effective negotiations are still a long way off.